Clause-chaining involves sequences of medial clauses (i.e. formally reduced or restricted clauses that do not have the full marking that usually occurs on the verb) which are dependent on a single, fully inflected verb that often (but not always) occurs in final clause. Clause chains may also be referred to as topic chains or as sequences of medial clauses/medial verbs. Crucially, this construction involves a single clause with a full, unrestricted, finite verb form and medial clauses that are dependent on it for specification of inflectional categories (e.g. TAM).
Clause chains are often used to describe sequences of events, and the medial verbs involved may be marked by special affixes to indicate temporal relationships. Clause chains may also include markers of switch reference. Medial verbs in some languages may be marked in the usual way for person/number of their arguments, though they generally lack some other canonical verbal inflection or involve specific marked verb forms that cannot be used in freestanding clauses.
There is considerable debate regarding the syntax of clause chaining generally and within individual languages. This construction is not merely a series of juxtaposed minimal clauses, as it requires dependency on one fully specified clause for full interpretation. It is also not straightforwardly a series of subordinated clauses (as in the series of temporal adjuncts in English, Before he ate, while he was cooking the soup, he added salt.). The syntactic relationship between clauses in clause chains is often described as a special type of coordination or a form of cosubordination.
In some cases clause-chaining may be difficult to distinguish from serial verb constructions. Remember that a serial verb construction involves a set of verbs or verb phrases that function as a single predicate, whereas clause-chaining involves a set of clauses with formally reduced verbs, all dependent on a single fully specified verb form. Clause-chaining is also different from verb compounding in that the clauses in clause chaining are phonologically independent and express separate propositions, which is not the case for verb compounding. In cases where it is unclear which of these constructions is represented by the examples in the grammar, a ? may be coded, but be sure to indicate in the comments that you were unable to determine which of these constructions is demonstrated in the relevant examples.
Northern Paiute (ISO 639-3: pao, Glottolog: nort2954)
In Northern Paiute, clauses that contain sequential or simultaneous markers cannot stand independently. These are used in a clause-chaining construction, dependent on a normally inflected clause in the chain for full temporal interpretation.
a. Yaisi o=woetsimmi-na, yaisi o=ggwɨdzɨ-na, o=ddza-puni-hu-dzaga-ti PRT 3SG.ACC=watch-SIM PRT 3SG.ACC=stir-SIM 3SG.ACC=INS.fingers-see-PFV-MOT-TNS ‘While you are watching it, while you are stirring it, you look at it every once in a while.’ (Toosarvandani 2016: 851) b. Yaisi mɨ=toogɨ=tɨwau nobiya-u-si, mɨ=toogi=tɨwau tsa-hibi-kɨ-u-ga-si, tammi mia-ga-kwɨ mii PRT PL=dog=also pack-PFV-SEQ PL=dog=also INSTR.fingers-drink-APPL-PFV 1PL.INCL.NOM go-MOT-IRR QUOT ‘So then, having packed up the dogs, and having made sure those dogs get a drink, so we’d take off.’ (Toosarvandani 2016: 851) (Abbreviations: PRT discourse particle, SIM simultaneous, SEQ sequential, MOT motion suffix, TNS general tense)
However, this clause-chaining construction differs markedly from the normal subordination construction in Northern Paiute, which involves nominalization and cannot involve the simultaneous or sequential markers.
c. subordinate clause, with the nominalizer -na Isu sɨadamɨ i=bisabi-na wadzi-mia-hu DEM.NOM girl 1SG.GEN=like-NMLZ hide-go-PFV ‘The girl that I like ran away.’ (Toosarvandani 2016: 854) d. subordinate clause, with the sequential marker -si *Isu sɨadamɨ i=bisabi-si wadzi-mia-hu DEM.NOM girl 1SG.GEN=like-SEQ hide-go-PFV (Toosarvandani 2016: 854)
Northern Paiute’s clause-chaining involves formally restricted clauses in sequence that depend on a single clause for full interpretation and do not employ the strategy that is typically associated with subordination in the language. This meets the criteria for a 1 code.
Kumyk (ISO 639-3: kum, Glottolog: kumy1244)
bu-lar, köl-nü gör-üp, this-PL lake-ACC see-CVB araba-syn toqtat-yp, cart-3.POSS stop-CVB čemodan-ny Manaj-ga da göter-t-ip, suitcase-ACC name-DAT also take-CAUS-CVB köl-nü jağa-syn-a bar-yp, lake-GEN bank-3.POSS-DAT go-CVB čemodan-ny ač-yp, suitcase-ACC open-CVB šyšla-ny čyğar-yp, bottle-ACC take.out-CVB tiz-ip, put.in.row-CVB suw-dan toltur-yp, water-ABL fill-CVB qajtar-yp čemodan-ğa sal-a. return-CVB suitcase-DAT put-PRS ‘They see the lake, stop their cart, make Manaj bring the suitcase, go to the bank of the lake, open the suitcase, take out the bottles, put them in a row, fill them with water, and put them back in the suitcase.’ (Džanmavov 1967:234)
Kumyk marks medial clauses with the CVB suffix -yp (or variant -üp). Each of the predicates marked with this suffix lack tense marking, and are interpreted with the tense category marked on the final verb. This language expresses a sequence of events with a series of reduced clauses that are dependent on the grammatical features specified in a single fully inflected clause for interpretation. Kumyk is coded 1.
Dooley, Robert A. 2010. Exploring clause chaining. SIL Electronic Working Papers 2010-001. Dallas: SIL International.
Foley, William A. 2010. Clause linkage and nexus in Papuan languages. In Isabelle Bril (ed.), Clause linking and clause hierarchy, 27–50. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Haspelmath, Martin. 1995. The converb as a cross-linguistically valid category. In Martin Haspelmath & Ekkehard König (eds), Converbs in cross-linguistic perspective, 1–55. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Longacre, Robert E. 2007. Sentences as combinations of clauses. In Timothy Shopen, ed. Language typology and syntactic descriptions, Vol. 2: Complex constructions, 372–420. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Weisser, Philipp. 2013. Dissecting clause-chaining constructions. ConSOLE XXI. Potsdam, 11 Jan. 2013.
Džanmavov, Jusup D. 1967. Deepričastija v kumykskom literaturnom jazyke (sravnitel'no s drugimi tjurkskimi jazykami) [Converbs in standard Kumyk (in comparison with other Turkic languages)]. Moscow: Nauka.
Toosarvandani, Maziar. 2016. The temporal interpretation of clause chaining in Northern Paiute. Language 92(4). 850–889.
To display the datapoints for a particular language family on the map and on the classification tree, select the family then click "submit".
You may combine this variable with a different variable by selecting on in the list below and clicking "Submit".
| 0 | absent | 1075 | |
| 1 | present | 444 | |
| ? | Not known | 876 |
| Name | Glottocode | Family | Macroarea | Contributor | Value | Source | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Description
Map
Values